3/2/15 6:38 PM EST

The State Department is stepping back from a spokeswoman’s comment last week suggesting that the agency’s ethics lawyers signed off on donations to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Asked at a daily briefing Thursday about the foundation’s failure to submit a $500,000 donation from the country of Algeria for a conflict of interest review in 2010, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters that the department did such reviews whenever the non-profit founded by former President Bill Clinton sent in information about a potential gift.

“We like to review — and we have reviewed every donation that was submitted,” Psaki said.

However, there are no indications any Clinton Foundation donations were ever sent to the State Department for approval.

Asked about Psaki’s comment, another State Department spokesperson said Monday that the reviews the agency did were of paid speeches Bill Clinton was proposing to make and business deals he wanted to enter into. From 2009 to 2012, hundreds of speech requests and a handful of consulting deals were sent to State Department lawyers for sign off. The vast majority were approved.

“We received requests regarding speeches and consultancies of former President Clinton,” State spokesman Alec Gerlach said.

Clarifying Psaki's earlier comment, Gerlach said that State Department reviewed every request that came in, not every donation.

In her remarks last week, Psaki also said the State Department was not troubled that the Algeria gift was never flagged to State. “In this case, the fact that the process has – was not followed in this particular incident does not raise concerns with us,” the spokeswoman said.

The ethics agreement struck before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009 only required State Department review of donations to the Clinton Foundation under very limited circumstances: when a foreign government wanted to “materially” increase its giving to four specific Clinton Foundation programs.

Gifts from foreign governments to one program, the Clinton Global Initiative, were barred altogether, as were new gifts to the other four programs from governments that had not previously supported them.

The agreement did not require vetting of donations from individuals, whether foreign or U.S. citizens, or from private companies, but did require public disclosure of the names of donors on an annual basis. Part of the pact also required Bill Clinton to submit proposals for paid speeches as well as plans for consulting deals.

Both the Clinton camp and the State Department have noted that the agreement went beyond the requirements of the law.

A foundation spokesman pushed back against criticism of the nonprofit on Monday, sending talking points to Clinton allies urging them to rebut "attacks on the Clinton Foundation" by stressing that the entity is "a world-class philanthropy" and that "every penny" of the Algeria gift went to helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake it experienced in 2010.

UPDATE (Monday, 8:06 P.M.): This post has been updated to add an additional line of comment from the State Department.

8/13/14 7:19 PM EST

A federal judge who had refused to recuse himself from the case of a Palestinian-American woman accused of naturalization fraud abrupty reversed course Tuesday and had the case reassigned to a different judge

Earlier, Detroit-based U.S. District Judge Paul Borman indignantly rejected a request from lawyers for Arab-American activist Rasmieh Odeh to step aside from presiding over her trial on charges that she lied to U.S. authorities by failing to disclose that she'd been convicted in connection with a pair of deadly bombings in Jerusalem in 1969.

Borman initially said the evidence Odeh's lawyers presented of his donations to Jewish charities and awards from pro-Israel groups amounted to no more than typical religious activity. He also implied that he was being urged to step aside because he's Jewish.

However, on Tuesday, Borman said he was backing out of the case because of a connection that was not charitable, religious or political, but investment related. The Clinton-appointed judge said he'd learned that one of the bombs was planted at a SuperSol supermarket and that his family had a financial interest in the firm at that time.

"The Court concludes that my family’s passive financial investment connection to SuperSol at the time of the 1969 bombing could be perceived as establishing a reasonably objective inference of a lack of impartiality in the context of the issues presented in this case," Borman wrote in an order (posted here). "I recuse today, not because of my charitable giving or my work on behalf of the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit or other charities, which I concluded in my previous Order created neither the reasonable appearance nor the fact of impartiality. My decision to recuse today is based upon facts which became known to me yesterday in review of a relevant document not previously seen by the Court, the specific Israeli indictment that undergirds the Government charge in this case."

Borman said he was confident he could be fair in the case, but that recusal was appropriate given the more direct connection created by his family's investment in the supermarket decades ago.

Odeh's case was immediately reassigned to Judge Gershwin Drain, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. The move may also allow the defense the chance to pursue motions Borman had barred Odeh from pressing after she backed out of a plea deal earlier in the case.

7/31/14 4:24 PM EST

A federal judge Thursday refused to recuse himself from a case where a Palestinian woman charged with naturalization fraud asked him to step aside due to his involvement with Jewish charities and other pro-Israel causes.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Borman said his religious and philanthropic activities were commonplace and fell far short of the standard for personal involvement where a judge should remove himself from a case such as the prosecution of Arab-American activist Rasmea Odeh for allegedly failing to disclose her convictions by an Israeli military court in connect with a pair of bombings in Jerusalem in 1969.

"The law of recusal is clear that a judge’s prior activities relating to his religious convictions are not a valid basis for questioning his impartiality in a particular case," Borman wrote in an 11-page ruling rejecting the defense motion (and posted here).

The judge compared the recusal motion to previous, unsuccessful, attempts to get black, Mormon or Jewish judges to recuse themselves from various cases.

"Defendant misrepresents the nature of my actual work. Based upon statements contained in a biography created in connection with my receipt from the Detroit Jewish Federation of an Award for my work on behalf of the Jewish Federation, Defendant leaps to the conclusion that I have inside information regarding the 'Israeli military legal system in the Occupied West Bank,' that will affect my ability to be impartial in this case. Not a single piece of factual evidence is offered to support this baseless assertions [sic]," the judge wrote.

"Like every one of my colleagues on the bench, I have a history and a heritage, but neither interferes with my ability to administer impartial justice to Ms. Odeh or to the Government," Borman wrote, in an opinion which blasted the defense for "irresponsible" allegations and indulging in "careless and rank speculation."

3/18/14 6:43 PM EST

Pressing forward with his inquiry into the reopening of the White House's political shop, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is asking the White House to turn over all records related to President Barack Obama's decision earlier this year to open a new Office of Political Strategy and Oversight.

In a letter dated Tuesday (and posted here), Issa asks White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough for "all documents and communications, including e-mails" about not only the re-opening of the government-funded political office, but also what the office's staff has been up to since it was reconstituted. Issa is also requesting that his committee's staff receive a briefing on the issue.

In 2011, Obama shuttered the Office of Political Affairs, with aides saying he was shifting the work to the Democratic National Committee to avoid duplication of effort as the 2012 campaign heated up. However, the move also coincided with a federal watchdog's report questioning the legality of the structure of the office under President George W. Bush and faulting Bush aides for violating the Hatch Act by mixing official and political business.

However, in January of this year, the office resumed functioning, albeit with a smaller staff and a new name: the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach. White House aides said that lawyers believe the new structure meets legal concerns and that Obama hopes the new office will improve coordination with elected officials and Democratic party entities in advance of the 2014 mid-term elections.

Issa's letter suggests that the new arrangement raises concerns that "taxpayer money is being used improperly to advance the interests of Democratic Congressional candidates and the Democratic Party."

The White House had no comment on Issa's letter, but reissued an earlier statement defending the legality of the new operation. "This White House recognized the need for a consolidated office to provide the President political information, which OSC has described as appropriate official activity," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.

Democrats have argued that Issa seemed less concerned about the Bush White House's political activities and have noted that the Republican lawmaker has previously expressed some ambivalence about whether the Hatch Act sets clear rules, particularly for White House staffers.

In a separate development Tuesday, Issa asked the federal watchdog agency assigned to enforce the Hatch Act—the Office of Special Counsel—to produce all information it has about an alleged violation by former Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.

The Los Angeles Times reported in January that the FBI made inquiries into Solis's involvement in an Obama fundraiser she attended at a Los Angeles restaurant in March 2012. Federal law prohibits nearly all federal employees from soliciting donations for partisan campaigns, though such employees can speak at fundraisers. A political aide to Solis, who is running for L.A. County Supervisor, told POLITICO Tuesday that her actions were "perfectly proper."

Solis resigned in January 2013, effectively mooting any investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, since its authority is limited to proposing discipline or termination of current federal employees. It's unclear what piqued the FBI's interest in the matter.

Issa's letter (posted here) asks the OSC to produce all its records pertaining to any investigation of Solis, if the agency did one.

2/12/14 6:29 PM EST

A government ethics watchdog said in a letter Tuesday that it has no records pertaining to President Barack Obama's decision to re-open a White House political office ahead of the mid-term Congressional elections this year.

"The U.S. Office of Special Counsel has no documents, communications, or other information responsive to the Committee’s request," Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner told House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). Her letter (posted here) was responding to Issa's query Monday asking for all data on consultations between OSC and the White House about the move announced last month to open a new Office of Political Strategy and Outreach.

Issa said Wednesday that his panel will "press for answers" on how the new office will ensure that government funds aren't used subsidizing political work.

"The American people are entitled to know what steps President Obama took to address past concerns when he decided to restart an openly partisan political effort within the White House, funded by the American taxpayers," Issa said in a statement. "If the White House did not even consult with the agency charged with protecting taxpayer dollars from inappropriate use in political campaigns, what did they do?"

In the letter dated Monday, Issa asked a goverment ethics watchdog—the Office of Special Counsel—to produce all records of contacts with the White House about the decision announced last month to re-establish a political office on the government payroll.

"So the Committee can effectively consider whether taxpayer money is being used to advance the interests of Democratic Congressional candidates and the Democratic Party, please produce....all documents and communications, including e-mails, between the OSC and the White House referring or relating to the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach or the reopening of the Office of Political Affairs," Issa wrote in the letter sent to Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner (and posted here).

Whether Issa will get much information in response to his request is unclear. A spokeswoman for Lerner said last month that the office was not aware of President Barack Obama's plan to re-open a White House political office.

A spokesman for Lerner said Monday that he had no new information to provide.

A White House spokesman declined to comment on Issa's letter.

The Obama White House revealed last month that it was re-establishing a political office to handle coordination with local officeholders and Democratic Party committees. Obama had a similar office during his first two years in the White House, but mothballed it in 2011, during the lead-up to his re-election campaign. Now, he's under pressure from lawmakers to step up his attention to helping Democrats win in this fall's midterm elections.

Obama announced the 2011 closure just days before the Office of Special Counsel issued a long-delayed report finding that in the 2006 campaign season officials working for President George W. Bush's administration repeatedly violated the Hatch Act, a law which attempts to divide official business from partisan political activity.

While Bush aides denied the charges, some lawmakers such as Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and former Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) have called in the past for closure of the White House political office. Many lawyers on both sides of the aisle believe the Hatch Act is antiquated and unworkable in part because the line between policy work and political activity is impossible to draw. Issa views on that question are unclear; a hearing he held in 2011 seemed to suggest the distinction was an artificial one.

Obama administration aides said last month the new office will be structured to avoid many of the issues identified in the OSC report about the Bush White House's actions in 2006. The new office's main function will be to provide political information to the president, something administration officials said the watchdog agency blessed in its report.

The new office will be also smaller and junior aides will not be permitted to work on explicitly political matters during work hours or while at the White House, officials said. Senior White House aides are covered by a Hatch Act exemption that permits political activity during the workday and on government property, as long as government funds are not used and officials don't use their titles to convey official approval of the political work.

There was no indication Monday that Issa has attempted, thus far, to obtain information about the new office directly from the White House. He may have more luck with Lerner, since his panel oversees her office.

1/22/14 2:59 PM EST

The White House declined to respond Wednesday to indicted former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s contention that President Barack Obama does the same kinds of things that led to federal corruption charges against the ex-governor.

“I have no comment on what is obviously an ongoing matter of prosecution, and I'll leave it at that,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in response to questions about McDonnell's assertion.

McDonnell and his attorneys said the former GOP governor did only what politicians typically do to reward contributors.

McDonnell, who along with his wife faces charges of wire fraud, bank fraud, extortion and conspiracy, said Tuesday that if the laws under which he was charged were applied equally, “then nearly every elected official, from President Obama on down, would have to be charged with providing tangible benefits to donors.”

McDonnell’s attorneys argued at greater length in a legal motion filed Tuesday that Obama “routinely” rewards political benefactors with invitations to official events, policy briefings and with ambassadorships.

“The president routinely participates in corporate events which lend credibility to his major benefactors, invites benefactors to events at the White House, allows his photo to be taken with benefactors, and includes benefactors in policy discussions with senior administration officials,” McDonnell’s attorneys wrote.

11/13/13 5:31 PM EST

A federal appeals court has rejected a district court judge's unusual plea asking the appellate court to lift an order that reassigned a pair of cases related to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk department.

However, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit backed away from its previous suggestion that the Judge Shira Scheindlin violated the judicial code of conduct in public comments made while the cases were pending.

"In our previous order, we referenced the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. We now clarify that we did not intend to imply in our previous order that Judge Scheindlin engaged in misconduct cognizable either under the Code of Conduct or under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act...No such finding is required...and we do not find that there was any judicial misconduct or violation of any ethical duty," the appeals court panel wrote.

While attempting to withdraw any claim of impropriety against Scheindlin, 2nd Circuit Judges John Walker, José Cabranes, and Barrington Parker did not overturn their order that the case be reassigned and insisted it was appropriate to reassign the case based on their concerns about her comments to the media and at a court hearing. The appellate panel also said judicial procedures do not permit Scheindlin to challenge the reassignment of the cases.

"We know of no procedural mechanism that might permit a district judge to come before us and argue on her own behalf in these circumstances, nor has Judge Scheindlin identified one," the panel wrote. "While a district judge may believe that he or she has expended a great deal of effort and energy on a case, only to see it reassigned, reassignment is not a legal injury to the district judge. Rather, reassignment allows the courts to ensure that cases are decided by judges without even an appearance."

The new opinions (posted here and here) were designated as "per curiam," meaning that they were not written by any particular judge. However, they were agreed to by all three judges on the panel.

Ultimately, the reassignment of the cases and the substance of the rulings on stop-and-frisk may be taken up by the full bench of the 2nd Circuit sitting en banc. Plaintiffs in the cases have already made such a request.

11/10/13 3:15 PM EST

A federal judge removed by a federal appeals court from a high-profile case over the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policies is making a bid to resolve the mushrooming legal dispute over her removal, but on terms that would resolve the fight in her favor for the time being.

In a letter dated Friday and released Sunday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, lawyers for Judge Shira Scheindlin urge a panel of the appeals court to lift a finding that she violated judicial ethics by granting media interviews and to lift their order that she be removed from two stop-and-frisk related cases.

"We believe, and the District Judge concurs, that it is in the best interests of all concerned to terminate a dispute that is distracting attention from the underlying merits, while preserving the rights of the parties to raise the issue in the ordinary course," attorney Burt Neuborne and other lawyers for Scheindlin wrote in the letter to the three-judge panel.

In the new letter (posted here), Scheindlin's attorneys call the dust-up "unseemly," and propose that the 2nd Circuit panel essentially back down for now.

"We urge the panel to withdraw, without prejudice, so much of its order herein, dated October 31, 2013, as sua sponte found that the District Court’s actions had 'run afoul' of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and directed her removal as presiding judge in Ligon v. City of New York, 13-3123 (corrected), and Floyd v. City of New York, 13-3088. Such a course of conduct would permit the parties to raise the issues at an appropriate point in the proceedings without being forced to address them in the context of an unseemly dispute among judges."

11/7/13 4:37 PM EST

Federal workers who live in Washington, D.C. will soon be able to run in contested, partisan elections without running afoul of the Hatch Act, a federal law which limits politicking by employees of the U.S. government.

Under a Office of Personnel Management rule change set to take effect next month, federal employees will be permitted to run as independents in such elections.

In most of the country, federal workers are barred from running in partisan races, but a slew of communities with large populations of federal employees have exemptions based on the notion that excluding a large cohort of the community from elective offices would unfairly disrupt local governance. The vast majority of Washington, D.C. suburbs have had waivers for decades, but the district itself was left out due to a historical legal quirk.

The new regulation allowing federal employees to be independent candidates in D.C. and permitting them to work on and run such campaigns is set to be published Friday in the Federal Register and to go into effect 30 days later. Federal employees will also be able to solicit volunteers to work for partisan local campaigns, but cannot ask subordinate employees to volunteer.

The new rule is the product of legislation advanced by Washington, D.C.'s delegate in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and signed into law last year by President Barack Obama. Norton said it was needed to bring "parity" between the district and surrounding jurisdictions.

10/17/13 12:48 PM EST

A federal appellate court on Wednesday ruled that e-mails from a government lawyer to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell are not protected by attorney-client privilege, a setback for the governor in the federal investigation into his dealings with a businessman and donor.

The Washington Post cited two sources confirming the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which withheld the names of the government official and lawyer in question, applies to McDonnell and the ongoing probe.

The three-judge panel upheld the district court's ruling in a per curiam opinion (posted here), saying that McDonnell's legal team failed to prove that the emails from the government-employed lawyer to the governor was related to legal advice, a necessary requirement for claiming attorney-client privilege.

In fact, the appeals court panel said, the lawyer—identified by the Post as McDonnell counselor and senior policy adviser Jasen Eige—didn't specifically state that he was acting as a lawyer or providing a legal opinion in regards to the emails, and the governor's attorneys never provided any other evidence that he was. Instead, they argued that since providing legal advice to the government is part of his job, the communications were privileged.

McDonnell's side cited a 1998 D.C. Circuit ruling stemming from Independent Counsel Ken Starr's demand for information from a lawyer and top adviser to President Bill Clinton, Bruce Lindsey. But the 4th Circuit panel noted that ruling declared that "consultation with one admitted to the bar but not in that other person’s role as lawyer is not protected."

“Appellants utterly failed to present any specific underlying facts to establish the privilege and meet their burden. The record contains evidence of not even a single conversation between the government official and the government-employed lawyer that concerned the seeking of legal advice," the 4th Circuit panel wrote in its eight-page opinion.

Eige is an attorney, but clearly has a broader mandate to provide advice to McDonnell on policy issues as well. In official legal matters, the Virginia attorney general's office traditionally provides the governor's legal team. However, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has recused himself due to his own ties to the donor and businessman whose largesse triggered the probe, Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams. Outside attorneys have been appointed to represent the state in related cases.

McDonnell is under investigation for his relationship to Williams, who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and loans to Virginia's first family.

For a criminal case, however, prosecutors must prove that McDonnell took the gifts with the intent to provide something in return, a case that experts have said will be difficult to prove.

The content of the disputed emails as unclear, but the ruling is a blow to McDonnell's defense team's attempts to keep them out of court.

McDonnell has returned all gifts from Williams and has denied any wrongdoing or giving undue support to Williams.

While the decision was a defeat for McDonnell and his legal team, the appeals panel also found that U.S. District Court Judge John Gibney Jr. went too far in his July ruling by concluding that attorney-client privilege can never exist for a government attorney in connection with a criminal investigation. The appeals court judges said it wasn't necessary for Gibney to tackle that issue since the privilege did not apply to the two e-mails in dispute. Gibney's ruling remains under seal.

Eige did not respond to a request for comment. McDonnell's legal spokesman declined to comment.

The unanimous, 4th Circuit ruling was issued by Judges Diana Motz and Robert King, who are both Clinton appointees, and by Stephanie Thacker, who was named to the bench by President Barack Obama.

(UPDATE: Thursday, 1:30 p.m.) This post has been updated to add the response from McDonnell's team.

9/1/12 3:02 AM EST

Federal prosecutors are not seeking any jail time for a former top aide to ex-Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Doug Hampton, in connection with Hampton's admission that he violated a federal ethics law by lobbying former colleagues within a year of leaving the Senate.

Hampton is set to be sentenced in federal court on Wednesday in what seems likely to be the final chapter in a messy saga that exposed Ensign's extramarital affair with Hampton's wife Cynthia, ended both Hamptons' Senate employment and ultimately led to Ensign's resignation from the Senate last year.

A terse prosecution memo filed in federal court in Washington this week doesn't mention the affair at all, though the filing (posted here) says Doug Hampton acted "in blatant disregard" of the one-year lobbying ban well known to Congressional staffers and mandated by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Prosecutors are recommending a sentence of two years probation and 200 hours community service.

However, a memo public defender A.J. Kramer filed on behalf of Hampton Friday afternoon puts the affair at the center of the story. The defense filing argues that others involved who were not charged are "far more culpable" than Hampton.

"It is important to note that there were other, far more culpable, and far less honest, people who could have been charged with crimes, but were not," Kramer wrote. "Mr. Hampton does not mean to criticize the Department of Justice, which must have had reasons for not charging others. But, it is a relevant factor for the court to consider in imposing sentence on Mr. Hampton that he is perhaps the only person involved who has been honest throughout the course of events, and is the only one charged."

Kramer's memo (posted here) doesn't say specifically who could or should have been charged, but contends Ensign set the course of events in motion.

Hampton "was, while not of this offense, in many senses the victim of the treachery and deceit of Ensign," Kramer wrote. "While not an excuse, it was...clearly a situational offense, that was completely out of character for Mr. Hampton."

The defense also argues that even though Hampton's lobbying was clearly illegal, many who knew about aspects of it never told him to stop.

"It is notable that Mr. Hampton contacted several Senators whom [sic] knew him, and a number of staffers at the offices of Ensign and other Senators, but no one ever voiced to Mr. Hampton any concern about his activities," Kramer wrote.

Lawyers for Ensign said in December 2010 that he was no longer a target of the Justice Department probe. However, a Senate Ethics Committee report in May 2011 urged DOJ to reopen the probe in light of new evidence. DOJ spokespeople have since declined to discuss the status of the investigation.

While Ensign has never been charged, Hampton was indicted in March 2011 on seven felony charges of willful violations of the ethics law. Each count carried a potential sentence of five years in prison. In June of this year, the former administrative assistant to Ensign pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge relating to one of the illegal lobbying contacts. Prosecutors agreed to drop the remaining charges.

The misdemeanor charge carries a potential sentence of up to a year in prison. However, court filings say federal sentencing guidelines, which judges are required to consult and usually observe, call for a term of zero to six months in Hampton's case.

Hampton is set to be sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, a former general counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee under Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). The defense has asked Howell to impose just one year of probation.

While Hampton is now employed, his lawyers say he is indigent and have successfully petitioned the court to pay for him to travel from Los Angeles to Washington for court hearings.

CORRECTION (Saturday, 11:03 P.M.): The initial version of this post misstated when Hampton entered his guilty plea. It was June 2012, not June 2011.